Controlling When You Relieve Your Yourself, Not Body Scan, Invades Privacy (Idiots Alert)

Townhall ^ | 1/05/2010 | Dennis Prager

[goldstategop]

There are idiots on both the Left and the Right who oppose a life-saving body scan because it violates people's privacy. Of course if you are dead, no one is going to be embarrassed by what's left of you. And I don't intend for moment, any more than Dennis Prager would, to obey moronic TSA rules meant rob me of my good judgment and my dignity in taking care of the call of nature. The government is not the master of me - especially in a life and death situation and at times when I might have to go to the bathroom, that's none of its business. I just hate insufferable fools - especially in Washington.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[Carling]

I don’t care one way of the other, but I remember traveling with my oldest daughter solo on a small plane. She was 1 at the time, and in the 20 minute descent, where we couldn’t leave our seats, she decided to unload a beast into her diaper. People were literally gagging around us, but we couldn’t leave our seat. I hope they all enjoy another 40 minutes of that courtesy of some other guy’s kid.

[Bobalu]

[microgood]

There are idiots on both the Left and the Right who oppose a life-saving body scan because it violates people's privacy.

And then there are idiots who believe these body scanners will actually detect these chemicals.

You are just swapping one indignity for another.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The body scan looks not for chemicals but for objects.

[microgood]

The body scan looks not for chemicals but for objects.

Although I do not know the actual technology except I guess it involves XRays, I have seen two reports this week that say the current scan technology (or at least what they are planning on using) cannot reliably detect what the crotch bomber was using.

[valkyry1]

That cartoon says it all for me.

[valkyry1]

Pretty soon it wont take to long before a person could reach their lifetime body dosage from penetrating radiation just from all the sorts of airport body scans.

[rawcatslyentist]

Would it be easier, less inconvenient, to just bow to is-SLIME, and they will do away with all the screening.

[blueplum]

it is my understanding that the body scanners are tuned to higher density objects, which is why they can ‘see’ thru lower- density clothing. I doubt they would detect powdered underwear.

[SC DOC]

Instead of (or in addition to) scanners, they should use this

[dixiedarlindownsouth]

The problem with submitting to the “body scan” having us to take off our shoes.. or not allowing passengers go to the bathroom the last hour of a flight? These things do nothing to keep Americans safe, and are a blatant infringement on Constitutional liberties. They are part of a politically correct ideology that demands we treat everyone the same instead of acknowledging that there are actual terrorists in the world who need special attention. Profiling is what is needed. Identifying the risks and making them submit to a body scan. Or better yet, not letting them into our country...

[Right Wing Assault]

Do people ever complain to their doctors about the invasion of privacy when they examine various parts of their body usually covered by clothing and underwear? No? Why not? Because they are choosing to allow this indignity for the safety of their health.

So why wouldn’t people flying not want to do the same to protect their lives?

Maybe TSA should hire doctors to look at the screening images.

[dixiedarlindownsouth]

LOVE it!

[Wonder Warthog]

"Although I do not know the actual technology except I guess it involves XRays, I have seen two reports this week that say the current scan technology (or at least what they are planning on using) cannot reliably detect what the crotch bomber was using."

It uses long-wavelength radio waves, so it's more analogous to ultrasound, so yes it is "like" X-rays in that it penetrates clothing, but uses much safer radiation to do so. and the way it "detects" the explosive is to allow you to "see" in the computer generated image that the passenger has a strange item taped to his groin.

Actual detection of the explosive itself is done by chemical instruments that can identify very tiny amounts of specific chemicals. You step into a booth that pulls a volume of air around you, and said air is fed to the instrument. If the person has on their body (or has handled) an explosive compound, at least a few molecules WILL be in that air, and will be detected.

Both technologies should be used, but they ain't cheap.

[rigelkentaurus]

the comparison of a doctor to the TSA isn’t working for me.

If I am sick and go to a doctor, it is obvious to me anyway, that the doctor will need to examine me and I do not consider it an indignity.

I go to the airport and someone rent a cop with an IQ of 50 does not have a need to strip search me for no reason. Same as the cop on the street. We can be safe without being strip searched on planes.

1. Stop all people from muslim countries from flying to the US

2. Kick out all non-citizens, especially muslims from the US

3. screen all foreign travelers and we think they are muslim, deny entry

4. profile remaining travelers to see if any muslims slipped through

That should be a good starting list for being safe - no need to take off my shoes, get strip searched, not go to the bathroom, etc.

[RoadTest]

As Mark Steyn pointed out, when we do things like this we hand victory to the terrorists. They are controlling our lives.

[TIElniff]

I’ve wondered about that. Is there any possibility that full-body scans by X-ray might be a cause of sterility or birth defects among frequent-flyer men or women? How long before there are law suits charging such?

[AppyPappy]

I’m more worried about female agents fainting when I go through.